African Studies and Rural Development

Shinichi TAKEUCHI

(Institute of Developing Economies)

This paper, an introduction to the Workshop entitled "African Rural

Development Reconsidered," has two main Objectives: one is to clarify the concept of

rural development; the other is to examine the relationship between African studies and

the rural development.

"Rural development" is not a sufficiently discussed topic in African studies.1

Although there are a lot of Africanists studying agriculture and rural problems, only a

few of them consider that their specialty is the problem of rural development. W hy

have Africanists taken this rather passive attitude to the problem? One of the reasons

seems to be a specific characteristic of the topic. In many cases, the problem of rural

development used to be argued from a normative or technical perspective. In this

context, the main concerns are how to intervene in rural society, or how to manage rural

development projects. It is difficult to link these practical concerns directly with results

of African studies: as their main objective is to understand African society, a more

realistic approach is generally preferred.

The second reason may be found in the fact that development strategies after

the 1980s have generally been indifferent to this issue. In the 1970s, the issue of rural

development was situated at the center of development strategy, thus vitalizing

arguments on it. After the 1980s, however, the interest in this topic has rather declined.

Moreover, in the tide of economic liberalization policies imposed by the international

community, African countries, weakened by lingering crises, lost their economic

capability to implement rural development projects. Researchers thus came to talk

much more about structural adjustment than rural development.

Consequently, I believe that the problem of rural development should be

1 Defining African studies is a difficult task, and this is not the main purpose of this paper. Here, African studies are regarded as having almost the same meaning as area studies on Africa. My argument is based mainly on the situation of African studies in Japan.

1

reexamined in the present context. The reason is clear. At first, the significance of rural

development has not changed at all in Africa. As for the urbanization rate in African

countries, ranging from 6% (Rwanda) to 83% (Djibouti), the average was 35.5% in

1997 (IBRD [1999]): two thirds of the total population in African countries are

inhabitants in rural areas. In addition, agriculture is the most important economic

activity for production and employment in many African countries. Rural development

should be enhanced in order to promote such an important agricultural sector. Moreover,

the problem of poverty is still serious in rural Africa. The majority of African rural areas

lack not only electricity and water, but also wells, health services and schools. In short,

this developmental issue having long been argued has the same significance as before

in Africa.

This means that the development strategy implemented since the 1980s has

not been successful to solve the above-mentioned problems. The strategy, attaching the

main importance to macro-economic balance, could not achieve sustainable

development or poverty alleviation in Africa. Ret1ections on the present crisis have

brought about a revision of the development strategy. This is the second reason for

dealing with this problem in the present context. As we will discuss later, the World

Bank announced its intention to revitalize the activities on rural development in the

mid-1990s. Recent arguments therefore require us to reexamine the meaning and the

possibility of rural development in Africa.

In this context, African studies should be linked with the practice of rural

development. Although it might be difficult for African studies to directly address

practical or normative problems of rural development, a series of facts about rural

society clarified by Africanists is indispensable for the practice of rural development.

Moreover, today's situation in rural Africa seems to demand a strong contribution of

African studies. How can Africanists contribute to this issue? W hat would be .points to

be· studied in the present situation of rural Africa? This paper tries to deal with such

questions.

For this purpose, we should clarify the notion of rural development. "Rural

development" is rather a new concept that appeared in the 1970s. The origin and

evolution of the concept should be clear in order to examine the relationship with

African studies. In the following sections, therefore, we start to shed light on the

concept of rural development, and elucidate the evolution of its implications. After that,

the relationship between African studies and rural development in the present context

will be examined.

-2-

I. Notion of Rural Development

We will start by dealing with "development," a term having various meanings.

This is certainly a notion including economic growth, which can be measured

quantitatively, for example by national income. But the meaning of "development" is

distinct from that of "growth," because the former implies not only quantitative

economic growth, but also qualitative changes in such aspects as organization,

institution and culture in society.2 Moreover, this qualitative change, in this case, is

considered as a "desirable" one. Although we cannot examine here the contents of

"desirable" change/ the term "development" has the implication that such "desirable" change continues during a certain period.

On the other hand, "development" also means the aggregation of intended

actions to bring about such change. In this sense, development is a practice of setting a goal to ameliorate the life of a group and transforming the society by political

intervention. In Japanese, the difference is clear, as it has two words to translate

"development:" "hatten" and "kaihatsu." While the term "hatten" emphasizes the aspect of autonomous change, the term "kaihatsu" puts emphasis on the aspect of political intervention. Interestingly, in request of rural development, the term "kaihatu" is always preferred: "rural development" has been translated, almost unconsciously, as

"nouson (rural) - kaihatsu." We can therefore consider that the notion of rural development in Japan has been linked with political intervention.4

If we understand the term "rural development" literally, it only has a neutral meaning of "development" in a geographically specific "rural" area. In fact, this term is

sometimes used without particular implication. Nevertheless, in the context of

development studies, the notion of "rural development" has been linked, especially in

the 19708, with a specific policy framework. As Harriss [1982: 15] has pointed out, the notion of rural development

appeared in the 1970s and criticized severely the development policy so far applied in

developing countries. The mainstream of Third World development policy in the 1960s

attached importance mainly to economic growth through industrialization, which was

2 For example, see Hayami [1995: 4]. 3 For a discussion about what is "desirable" change, see for example Hoggart & Buller p987] .

This is not only in the Japanese context; rural development has been the main social policy in the latecomers' developmental process (See Suehiro [1998]).

-3

to be achieved by the initiative of government. As for policies on rural areas and

agriculture, their main goal was the growth of agricultural productivity through

modernization. The agricultural mechanization policy was typical in this context.

However, being aware of the existence of the massive number of poor in developing

countries, criticism against such exclusively growth-oriented policy has increased. This

criticism has affected developmental thought, thus making international organizations

such as ILO and the World Bank put more emphasis in the 1970s on such issue as poverty alleviation, correction of inequality and fair distribution of developmental

results (Esho [1997]).

The policy framework for "rural development" appeared with such a change

of developmental thought.s When poverty alleviation came to be the central issue in

development, it was natural that the rural areas, where the majority of the poor lived,

attracted the major concern. The growth-oriented policy so far applied in developing

countries had only limited ability to tackle the poverty problem: the trickle-down effect,

which means that if economic growth continues, the result tricldes down to the poor.

On the contrary, the rural development policy confronted directly the critical issue of

poverty. "Rural" in the notion of "rural development" meant in this context a place

where the poor live. In total, the notion of rural development has been strongly linked

with the goal of poverty alleviation, and with the framework for development strategy

emphasizing not only economic growth but also distribution and equality. Such an idea

of rural development appeared and rapidly spread in the 1970s as the new approach for

Third World development.

11. Rural Development and the World Bank

It was the World Bank that played the major role in spreading the notion of

rural development in the 1970s. In this section, therefore, the World Bank experience of

S As the reasons why the rural development policy, targeted on peasants, appeared in the 1970s, Mizuno [1999] mentions four factors. First is that, as the peasant revolution succeeded in several countries in Asia and Latin America in the 1960s, Western countries were eager to ameliorate the living standard of the peasants. Secondly, excessive urbanization has become a serious problem in many developing countries. This has lea to international concern about rural poverty as the origin of migration. Third is that technical innovation such as high-yield varieties and fertilizers, progressed rapidly, thus making agricultural investment profitable. Finally, Chinese experience of rural development was highly appreciated internationally. These factors brought international concern to the peasant problem.

-4

6000

5000

§ 4000

'E 3000 �

� 2000 1000

o

Figure 1. World Bank's Lending to the Agricultural Sector (1972-98)

-j

� � � � � � � � � � � * � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Fiscal Year

I-+- World ---- Sub-Sahara Africa I

Source: IBRD, World Bank Annual Report; [1974-1998].

6 000

5000

4000

] 'E 3000 ..... UJ ::J

2000

1000

0

Figure 2. Distribution of Approved Agriculture and Rural Development Projects --------

1965 1966 1967 1968 196 9 197 0 19711972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 197 9 198 0 198119821983198419851986 Fiscal Year

T etal Lending -+-RD Lending as Percentage ef T etal

Source: Based on IBRD [1988b]

-5-

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

rural development will be examined.

The World Bank governor's epoch-making speech in September 1973

declared the adoption of a new policy: rural development. In this "Nairobi Speech," the

governor shed light on the significance of poverty alleviation and promised enlarged

lending for rural development. The World Bank document in 1975 gave a short and

clear definition of rural development.

"Rural development is a strategy designed to improve the economic and

social life of a specific group of people the rural poor. It involves extending the

benefits of development to the poorest among those who seek a livelihood in the

rural areas. The group includes small-scale farmers, tenants and the landless "

(IBRD [1975bD.

Rural development was in this sense understood as the most effective strategy

for alleviating povel1y. As Figure 1 shows, the lending for rural development increased

remarkably after the "Nairobi Speech." The World Bank defined a "rural development

project" as a "poverty-oriented project" in which "50% or more of the direct benefits

accrue to the rural target group" (IBRD [1988b: 4]). Figure 2 indicates that not only the

total amount of lending for agriculture and rural development6 increased, but also that

the ratio of lending for rural development, namely poverty-oriented projects, was

enlarged from the end of the 1960s.

One of the characteristics of rural development projects was "Area

Development" approach. This is an approach to create a social and economic

infrastructure for the rural poor by investing considerable resources in a specific area.

The concept of this approach is similar to the "Basic Needs" approach advocated

especially by ILO.7 "Basic Needs" approach tried to provide the poor with a set of

minimum standards of living: consumer goods such as foodstuffs, shelter and clothes,

basic services such as potable water, health care and education, and other basic rights

for living such as employment and participation in the decision-making process. The

"Area Development" approach was a strategy derived from recognition of the cause of

poverty being so complex that wide-ranging and simultaneous countermeasures should

be taken. This approach was adopted especially for projects in African countries

(Mizuno [1999: 21 D.8

6 Lending for the "agriculture and rural development" sector was thus divided into the agriculture (non-poverty-oriented) and rural development (poverty-oriented) sub-sectors. Such a distinction was abolished from the annual report of 1993. 7 The World Bank itself did not adopt the "Basic Needs" approach. 8 This approach was later criticized for several reasons. The main reasons were the low

-6

Nevertheless, the period was short when rural development was the central

issue of development policy. The tide of developmental thought changed once again in

the 1980s. Figure 3 shows the ratio of lending for the agricultural (including rural

development) sector to total lending. It is clear that the ratio, once it had increased in

the 1970s, continued to decline after the 1980s. Although the absolute amount of

lending for the agricultural sector increased even in the 1980s, its.importance in World

Bank activities has clearly decreased.

This trend is related to the change of development strategy adopted by the

World Bank. As lending for rural development remarkably increased in the 1970s, the

lending for non-projects Qater multi-sector) was considerably enlarged in the 80s. This

was not lending for particular projects, but was admitted under strict conditions of

economic policy. Figure 4 indicates the evolution of lending for the agricultural sector

and for the non-project sector. The latter, which increased rapidly in the 1980s,

exceeded the former in the 1990s. This increase in the later, indicating the development

of structural adjustment lending, reflects the change in the Bank's strategy for lending,

and thus for development.

The World Bank's Operations Evaluation Department carried out an

assessment of its rural development programs and published the result (IBRD [1988b]).

While the report emphasized the significance and the fruit of the rural development

program, it allso pointed out several problems with it. Two points are especially

important in order to understand the change in development strategy.

The first one is the non-coherence between rural development projects and

macro-economic policy. The report pointed out that macro-economic policy was often

not advantageous for the agricultural or rural sector. If macro-economic policy created

conditions that acted against the agricultural sector, it could considerably reduce the

significance of projects. Price policy and exchange policy are especially important as

they determine the terms of trade for farmers. As rural development is not a charity for

the poor, but support for the development, it is natural that donors have considerable

concern that recipient countries define appropriate economic policy for the agricultural

sector. Such recognition led to the Bank's policy of guidance on appropriate

macro-economic policy, namely the structural adjustment policy.

The second point is the problem of management in rural development

projects. The report stressed the significance of local inhabitants' participation in the

rate of return and the possibility that a small proportion of the people could get a disproportionate share of resources (IBRD [1988b: 22-26]).

-7-

45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10%

5% 0%

Figure 3. Ratio of World Bank's Lending to the Agricultural Sector

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Fiscal Year

Source: lBRD, World Bank Annual Report, [1974 - 199B].

(f) c

.2

·E � Cl) ::>

1200

1000

800

600

400

o

FigureA World Bank's Lending to the Agricultural \:)e'CLC)r and Non-Project Sector (for African Countries)

������������������*���* ����������������������� Fiscal Year

Source: lBRD, World Bank Annual R�port, [1974 - 1998].

-8

process of planning and managing projects. It also emphasized the necessity to establish

a feedback system in order to resolve discovered problems in an ongoing project. This

recognition led to the recent strategy of decentralizing the project management or

transferring it to NGQs. On the other hand, the report pointed out that strong

commitment from government was necessary for the success of a project. This means

that the political leadership or the administrative capacity inevitably influenced the

project management. This point, relating to the problem of governance or the State,

brought into t.he argument capacity building or human development in the context of

development strategy.

Although the ratio of the World Bank's agricultural sector lending to total

lending has tended to decline, this fact does not by itself mean that the Bank came to

regard the problem of poverty as insignificant. It should be interpreted that lending for

poverty alleviation tends to be dispersed among several sectors such as social,

environment, or urbanization.9 In this sense, the Bank seems to have looked for a new

strategic position on rural development. 10 Since the mid-1990s, the Bank has been

trying to revitalize rural development. In 1996, they formulated an action plan,

indicating its policy for agriculture, rural development and natural resource

management. 11 Since that year, every annual report of the Bank has emphasized the

importance of rural development. Rural development was selected in 1998 as one of six

strategically important activities of the Bank;12 this activity is now understood not to be

the sole method for poverty alleviation, but as an important domain to tackle many

related problems such as food security and resource management.

Ill. Perspectives on Rural Development in Africa

It may still be too early to assess the new rural development strategy of the

1990s. However, from the experience of rural development until the 1980s, we can

imagine that there were several problems responsible for the policy change. How has

9 For the recent perspective of the World Bank for poverty alleviation, see IBRD [1990b].

o It was symbolic that the Bank has abolished the lending category for "rural development" in its annual report since 1993. The distinction in the agricultural sector between non-poverty-oriented and poverty-oriented (namely rural development) was criticized as meaningless in the evaluation report in 1988. 11 See IBRD [1996: 55-56]. 12 See IBRD [1998: 80].

-9-

this experience of rural development in Africa been assessed or evaluated? In this

section, we compare the assessments of African rural development projects by the

World Bank and by Africanists. This comparison of perspectives will help to clarify the

specificity of each approach.

Table 1 shows the result of audited rural development projects financed by

the World Bank between 1974 and 79 (fiscal years). This table indicates several facts

about rural development projects in Africa (Sub-Sahara African countries are separated

between East Afric

with projects in Africa. Particularly that of project planning and management was

sometimes a serious problem. The report stated, "In too many cases, ... , especially in

Sub-Saharan Africa, rural development lending was supply-driven by funds and project

slots and the need to meet arbitrary target criteria, rather than demand-driven by sound

strategies and realistic, well prepared proposals"(IBRD [1988b:xviiiD. In addition to

the problem of economic rate of return, the Bank therefore judged that rural

development projects in Africa also had serious problems with project management in

general.

How then have Africanists regarded the African experience of rural

development? At first, let us summarize Yoshida's resCl'lrch analyzing Tanzanian rural

development (1987; 1989). Tanzania, under the Nierere government, declared its

socialist-oriented policy in the "Arusha Declaration" of 1967. Their "Ujamaa

socialism" attached importance to the agricultural sector and rural area. In most parts of

rural Tanzania, peasants used to live in scattered dwellings and they did not form

villages. As a socialist program, the government tried to form villages in order to later

establish village-owned communal farms. This was considered as the most effective

way to modernize rural areas and increase agricultural production. Initially, the

government promised to respect peasants' intentions when they promoted this

villagization. Changing the attitude in 1973, however, the government enforced

measures to make peasants move in order to form "Ujamaa" villages. Peasants'

opinions were no longer respected in the operation. This policy, in addition to damage

by drought, caused a sharp decrease in food production in 1973 and 1974. Moreover,

export crop production such as cashewnuts continued to decline because of

inappropriate pricing policy. The government continued to carry out the villagization

policy despite the resistance of peasants, but they renounced the plan of common farms.

They finally adopted a liberalistic agricultural policy in 1982, and the rural

development policy based on "Ujamaa socialism" thus came to an end.

This is the well-known story of Ujamaa policy, which has generally been

assessed as a complete failure. On this point, in admitting the failure of the policy as it

could not achieve its initial goal, Yoshida pointed out at the same time some important

etIects brought about by Ujamaa policy. Among the socialist measures implemented in

rural areas, while communal farm policy has totally disappeared, the villagization

policy has borne some fruits. While it is certain that the villagization policy led to

temporary decrease in food production, it took root in many rural Tanzania and helped

to establish local administrative organizations. Although the environmental problem

around villages remains to be solved, the infrastructure was generally atneliorated

11

because the government constructed such facilities as simply-made water services,

elementary schools, health care centers, and cereal storage. Such changes could be

positively evaluated as they established social and economic bases for the future

development of rural areas. He thus called attention to the fact that Ujamaa policy has

achieved one of its purposes.

The next example is Muroi's research on Nigeria (1987, 1989). Nigeria

actively promoted several agricultural and rural development programs from the

mid-1970s. Muroi analyzed two of the programs: the large-scale irrigation program

financed mainly by the government, and "integrated rural development program"

financed mainly by the World Bank.14 Self-sufficiency in food was the main goal of

both of these projects. The latter program was intended especially for small-scale

farmers, as the Bank financed it. Although abundant oil money was allocated for these

programs, Nigerian food production did not sufficiently increase. Though some

strategically important food crops were selected (wheat and rice in large-scale irrigation

programs, and maize in the "integrated rural development program"), the result was not

satisfactory in either case. Neither the production of wheat nor of rice increased. The

production of maize augmented, but the increase was mainly due to the provision of

very cheap fertilizer: the government expended great amount to subsidize it. Moreover,

in the former program, many peasants were enforced to move from their homeland

because of the construction work. In the latter case, the project caused structural

corruption such as the illegal marketing of subsidized fertilizer.

While pointing out such problems with the projects, Muroi posed an

important question: how did the"

rural development policy affect the "relations of

production" in rural areas. Although both the two programs could not ameliorate

Nigerian self-sufficiency in food, they did affect considerably on rural society, causing

new situations: land appropriation, creation of opportunity for wage lab or, distribution

of fertilizer, introduction of new varieties, etc. In other words, peasants were obliged to

react to such new situations. MUl'oi's findings in northern Nigeria, where many

development projects were implemented, were that commodity production developed

rapidly, and that wage labor and commercialization of land became increasingly

apparent. Such changes, however, did not lead directly to the polarized differentiation

premised by classical Marxist analysis: the dichotomy between capitalists and

agricultural·laborers. Impressive examples were that peasants started to earn money as

wage laborers, but they always hold the usufruct of land; the land was not totally

14 The latter project was also assessed in IBRD [1988b].

-12

commercialized, only the usufruct in the dry season was commercialized. In summary,

they were always "imperfect" transformations from the theoretical point of view. Muroi

maintained that capitalistic forces represented by rural development programs might

only have "articulated" the indigenous rural society.

Two Japanese Africanists have pointed out problems with the rural

development program in Africa: enforcement by the government, ineffectiveness and

corruption of the bureaucracy, inappropriate macro-economic policy, and lack of local

participation. These points by themselves are almost the same as those claimed in the

report by the World Bank. But two of the Africanists stressed an important point which

was not mentioned in the Bank's evaluation report: even if political interventions in the

name of rural development could not achieve its goal in a short period or failed by the

judgment

The realistic approach of African studies can contribute to a normative approach for

rural development, and vice versa. I will indicate lastly several important points to

reconsider in the relationship between African studies and rural development.

First, the autonomous development process of rural societies should be much

more analyzed in the discussion about rural development. Studies of rural development

are not the same as studies of "rural development projects." Various aspects of rural

transformation, with which many Africanists have tackled, should be treated in studies

of rural development.15 In this context, studies on the impact of rural development

projects from the long-term perspective are very important. It is true that a cost-benefit

analysis of a specific project has certain significance, but African studies can contribute

much more to analyze the impact of projects on rural society or the direction of social

changes in the long term.

Second, understanding the "logic" of rural society is crucial not only for

African studies, but also for the success of a rural development project. As rural

development projects are generally managed by the donors' staff, the funding and logic

come from the external world, so responsible of project management often alienates the

local people. Many researchers have mentioned this point and proposed ways to solve

problem.16 Such prescriptions as decentralization of the project, local participation and

introduction of a sociological method for research can be interpreted as trials to tackle

the problem. As Africanists, especially anthropologists, have actively studied the social

structure of rural societies, their results would be useful to examine the solution to this

problem.

Third, as rural development projects involve the administration and are

influenced by politics, research on them naturally relates to the problem of the African

State and its governance. Recent African studies, especially in the field of political

science, have produced many interesting reSults on this topic.17 Such a realistic

approach would be useful for the practice of organizing a rural development project.

The last point is related to the current situation in rural Africa. Following the

recent politico-economic changes in Africa, the rural area is confronted with new and

difficult problems. Problems of the environment and resource management, for which

the World Bank has strengthened its effort, may be one of these issues. I want here to

point out the significance of researches into the disastrous situation in rural areas.

15 In this sense, Hoggart & Buller [1987] is an interesting work. Dealing with mainly developed countries, it sheds much light on the various aspects of rural development. 16 For example, see Chambers [1983]). 17 For example, See Bayart [1989], Chabal [1992] and Chabal & Daloz [1999].

14-

This is a problem recently highlighted by the outbreak of famine and,

especially, intensified conflicts. When a famine breaks out, it is mainly the rural areas

that are affected. Refugees and the internally displaced that are produced by conflicts

could cause the same damage. Africa has recently seen many incidents causing serious

damage in rural areas. If initial emergent measures are to be taken by humanitarian

organizations such as UNHCR, it is necessary to establish a long-term development

plan at an early stage. Considering that the disaster in rural Africa is, unfortunately, no

longer an exception, we should discuss how to deal with such a disaster and how to

recover the damage created in rural areas. It is therefore necessary and useful to study

this topic of rural development by linking with the results of Afi'ican studies. Although

research on the causes, effects and prescriptions for the disaster in rural areas are not yet

sufficient,18 the significance and necessity of such studies should be recognized.

REFERENCES

Bascom, Johnathan

1998 Losing Place; Refugee Populations and Rural Transformations in East Africa, New York: Berghahn Books.

Ba yart, J ean-Fran

Political Economy of Development) �pff�*a 1ffJr.'*0iStrttf!f;%!!flJJ El *

�¥mmtio

Harriss, John

1982 "General Introduction" in Harris ed. [1982], pp. 15-34.

Harriss, John ed.

1982 Rural Development: Theories of Peasant Economy and Agrarian Change.

London: H utchinson University Library.

Hayami, Yujiro

1995 Kaihatukeizaigaku; Shokokumin no hinkon to tomi, Tokyo: Soubunsha.

(Hayami, Y, Development Economics) �7J

1:990a World BankAnnual Report, Washington, D.C. 1990b World Development Report, Washington, D.C. 1991 World BankAnnual Report, Washington, D.C. 1.992 World BankAnnual Report, Washington, D.C. 1993 World BankAnnual Report, Washington, D.C. 1994 World BankAnnual Report, Washington, D.C. 1995 World BankAnnual Report, Washington, D. C. 1996 World BankAnnual Report, Washington, D.C. 1997 World BankAnnual Report, Washington, D.C. 1998 World BankAnnual Report, Washington, D.C. 1999 World BankAfrica Database (CD-ROM)

Mizuno, Masami

1999 "Nouson kaihatsu ron no tenkai" (The Rise of Rural Development in the

Third World Countries), in Yamada, Mutsuo ed. Hattentojoukoku no nouson kaihatsu (Rural Development in Developing Countries), Osaka: The Japan Cent er for Area Studies, National Museum of Ethnology. (7.K!F:Y

r 1I:*1m.J�-Barro CV mi� J [[' �fHlj£Lta�ffi1 CV �*1rm�J] itilJ�H �� TIID ��jft {: :/ 9 -" rJr�)( )

Suehiro, Akira

1998 "Kaihatsu-shugi toha nanika" (What is develop mentalism'?), in Institute of

Social Science, The University of Tokyo ed.

(Developmentalism), Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. ±� t �;t{P]7J�J ***�*±:ftf4�llJf�rJft� [['OO�±�Jl ?fr�)()

--17-

Kaihatsu-shugi rrm�